The learning styles of graduating Canadian urology residents
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: The Kolb learning theory attributes differences in the way people learn with the way they perceive and process an experience, leading to uniquely different learning styles. Studied in other surgical disciplines, it has yet to be examined in a urology population. Identifying the learning style of urology residents may help in the development of teaching curricula that are best suited to knowledge and skill acquisition. The objective of this study was to characterize the learning styles of graduating Canadian urology residents attending the Queen's Urology Exam Skill Training (QUEST) examination. METHODS: The Kolb Experiential Learning Profile (KELP) 4.0 questionnaire was administered to all graduating Canadian urological residents attending QUEST for the years 2021-24. Project participation was 100%. All participants received a report at the conclusion of the course. Participants' preferred learning phase (acting, thinking, reflecting, experiencing) and a specific learning style (deciding, analyzing, thinking, acting, initiating, balancing, reflecting, experiencing, imagining) were identified for all residents. Preferred learning phase and learning style were compared among years using the Chi-squared test (α=0.05). Preferred learning phase and learning style were compared amongst self-identified gender using the Fisher-Freeman-Halton exact test (α=0.05). RESULTS: Graduates from 2021 (n=35), 2022 (n=29), 2023 (n=37), and 2024 (n=35) were included. In aggregate, the preferred learning phases among urology residents included thinking (38%, n=51), followed closely by acting (32%, n=44). A minority of urology residents preferred the reflecting (21%, n=28) and experiencing phase (10%, n=13). There were no significant differences year to year within an individual learning phase (p>0.05). In aggregate, the most common preferred learning styles included the deciding learning style (21%, n=29), followed by analyzing (15%, n=20), thinking (14%, n=19), acting (13%, n=18), and initiating (13%, n=18). Lesser common learning styles included balancing (11%, n=15), reflecting (7%, n=10), imagining (3%, n=4), and experiencing (2%, n=3). There were no significant differences year to year within an individual learning style (p>0.05). There were no significant differences between self-identified gender and preferred learning phase or style (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Graduating Canadian urology residents vary in their preferred learning styles, but the majority seem to learn by acting and thinking. A non-trivial number of learners displayed learning styles under-represented in surgical specialties. This lays the groundwork for future studies correlating learning style to exam performance and identifying predictors of successful completion of residency.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle